Evan McMullin

[spaz]

First, a few links:
* http://history.house.gov/Institu...
* http://www.senate.gov/reference/...
* http://www.senate.gov/artandhist...

The links are from the US House of Representatives site and the US Senate site. These were chosen because at the end of the day, they are the ones who do the impeaching, and the ones who set the rules for it.

“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4

That's the start of that. There have been a number of examples of successful impeachments for not the President. By and large though, it does appear that a president can be impeached for crimes they committed prior to becoming the president. There needs to be an Article II, Section 4 rationale. And there needs to be an investigation into this crime. It would almost certainly not be done unless there was a high crime that had an impact on the person's ability to govern or there were overriding political concerns that made the House and Senate really want to do it. This is because impeachment serves as part of the checks and balance of the three branches of the US Government. This is also because the definition of high Crimes and Misdemeanors is not spelled out. The latter provides a great deal of opportunities.

[poky]

I don't know about this. Makes me now wonder what are the demographics at military installations because this is not my perception -- I see a lot of ethnic/racial diversity and women. Now 20 years ago when I taught a college course at an air force base, I would have agreed with you since I mostly saw white men. Now, not so much.

According to the demographics report from 2014 (http://download.militaryonesource.mi...ics-Report.pdf), almost 69% of all active duty (all branches) are white, 67% of enlisted and 77% of officers. 85% of all active duty are male. The report does not talk about the intersection of the two, so no idea if the gender ratio holds within ethnicities or not.

So it's still a pretty overwhelming majority white male, though probably not as much as it used to be.

[spotty_dog]

Of the young Navy people I know, enlisted sailors and their spouses, many were for Bernie Sanders, and now are for Clinton as far as I can tell. The older conservative officers are more stubborn, they're especially big on gun rights, and I think many are going Trump. Male and female, wives, POC and white. Johnson isn't much of a factor up here, I don't think. McMullin might be getting some traction with the religious conservative population though, especially the pro-life vote.

Last I checked, Clinton is not being brought up on any criminal charges, or even recommended for any, after all of the investigations into her business.

[OrionGrad]

Last I checked, Clinton is not being brought up on any criminal charges, or even recommended for any, after all of the investigations into her business.

There's so much misinformation out there, I'm not surprised many people believe this. Just this week Fox News reported that HRC was facing indictment, and then they retracted the story and admitted they didn't actually have any evidence to back up the claim. 🙄

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...html?tid=sm_tw

[medpedspouse]

According to the demographics report from 2014 (http://download.militaryonesource.mi...ics-Report.pdf), almost 69% of all active duty (all branches) are white, 67% of enlisted and 77% of officers. 85% of all active duty are male. The report does not talk about the intersection of the two, so no idea if the gender ratio holds within ethnicities or not.

So it's still a pretty overwhelming majority white male, though probably not as much as it used to be.

I am so sorry. I will admit that I was completely incorrect and that my perception was flawed. I will step out of the conversation now. Again my apologies for even questioning such.

[poky]

I am so sorry. I will admit that I was completely incorrect and that my perception was flawed. I will step out of the conversation now. Again my apologies for even questioning such.

No no no! I'm sorry if my post came across as dismissive; not what I intended at all. Your experience and perception are what they are, and you started out by saying "makes me now wonder..." so I just did a little digging to find out the numbers, to satisfy that natural curiosity. I definitely didn't mean it in a "you're WRONG" way! It very well may be that your perception is accurate for what you've seen, and that it's a localized effect that's counter to the overall averages that I found, and after all, the numbers I found are at least 2 years old (since they were published in 2014). And even with those numbers, 30+% non-white is a sizable minority, even though it is still a minority.

[diggitydot]

Interestingly, I have an IRL friend in common with McMullin. From what I understand, he's a very decent and smart person. Politically, I disagree with many of his positions, but I wouldn't see a McMullin presidency as a horrific outcome. Not my preferred outcome, but not ushering in the apocalypse, either.

I can disagree with people politically and it not be personal affront because I love the shit out of many people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me. What is taking me a bit to process is how many people were OK voting for the candidate who enumerated exactly how he'd violate the rights of vulnerable Americans, simply because of their dislike of the other candidate. Selling out fellow Americans' rights because you dislike the other candidate is just something I truly never thought I'd see. It disappoints me and is going to take me a while to process.